[PDF] The Political Economy Of Responses To Covid 19 In The Usa eBook
The Political Economy Of Responses To Covid 19 In The Usa Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle version is available to download in english. Read online anytime anywhere directly from your device. Click on the download button below to get a free pdf file of The Political Economy Of Responses To Covid 19 In The Usa book. This book definitely worth reading, it is an incredibly well-written.
Social distancing via shelter-in-place strategies, and wearing masks, have emerged as the most effective non-pharmaceutical ways of combatting COVID-19. In the United States, choices about these policies are made by individual states. We develop a game-theoretic model and then test it econometrically, showing that the policy choices made by one state are strongly influenced by the choices made by others. If enough states engage in social distancing or mask wearing, they will tip others that have not yet done so to follow suit and thus shift the Nash equilibrium. If interactions are strongest amongst states of similar political orientations there can be equilibria where states with different political leanings adopt different strategies. In this case a group of states of one political orientation may by changing their choices tip others of the same orientation, but not those whose orientations differ. We test these ideas empirically using probit and logit regressions and find strong confirmation that inter-state social reinforcement is important and that equilibria can be tipped. Policy choices are influenced mainly by the choices of other states, especially those of similar political orientation, and to a much lesser degree by the number of new COVID-19 cases. The choice of mask-wearing policy shows more sensitivity to the actions of other states than the choice of SIP policies, and republican states are much less likely to introduce mask-wearing policies. The choices of both types of policies are influenced more by political than public health considerations.
This book seeks to identify the reasons why some countries were more efficient and effective than others in responding to the COVID 19 pandemic, and why the global community failed to coalesce. What are the political determinants of the different state responses to the pandemic? Why was scientific advice rejected or ignored in many countries? What has been the role, respectively, of neoliberalism, populism, and authoritarianism in the making of Covid-19 policy? What role have each of these factors played in the uneven and clearly inadequate global response to the pandemic? In an effort to understand why some states failed to handle the pandemic properly, some of the literature suggests that populism is at the root of the current failure of international co-operation. The global financial crisis of 2008-10 triggered significant cooperation within the G-20, led by the combined efforts of the United States and China. These forms of cooperation have clearly disappeared in the context of the pandemic, not only with respect to economic policy but also in public health and management. The authors of this volume link the different state responses to the pandemic-- from its inception to the start of the vaccination campaign, and to the political regimes prevailing in each. In particular, the present volume focuses on a distinction between the responses of neo-liberal regimes, populist regimes and authoritarian ones.
This comprehensive book brings together research published during 2021 analysing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the economy – on output and employment, on inequality, and on public policy responses. The Covid-19 pandemic has been the greatest public health crisis for a century – since the ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic of 1919. The economic impact has been equally seismic. While it is too early to measure the full economic cost – since much of this will continue to accumulate for some time to come – it will certainly be one of the greatest global economic shocks of the past century. Some chapters in this edited volume report on specific countries, while some take a comparative look between countries, and others analyse the impact upon the global economy. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, there had been calls for a ‘great reset’ in face of the climate crisis, the increased income and wealth inequality, and the need to avoid further global financial crisis. With the devastating Covid-19 pandemic – a harbinger for further such pandemics – there is an even greater need for a reset, and for the reset to be that much greater. The chapters in this book were originally published as special issues in the journal International Review of Applied Economics.
This paper provides the 3rd quarter update to an earlier analysis of the record on the first six months of the U.S. public policy response to the COVID-19 epidemic, The conclusion remains crystal clear:The U.S. had one of the worst policy responses to the pandemic in the world, certainly among large, high-income democracies, including Asian (e.g., South Korea, Japan, Taiwan), European (e.g., Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway), and other nations (e.g., Australia, New Zealand).The update has stronger findings based on new sources of data and analysis.Three months of recent data, a period that was particularly harsh in the U.S;More than doubling the number of data sources to over 350, which include reports of multinational and national public health and economic institutions, academic papers, trade association analyses, detailed accounts from investigative journalism, and dozens of publications in the field of public administration.Evaluating and incorporating the recent Woodward book (Rage).Cross-national Comparisons: Comparative cross-national studies show the heavy price of bad policies in the U.S, compared to the results achieved by others in three areas:Public Health: 200,000 avoidable deaths, six million avoidable infections and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.Economic: trillions of dollars of lost output and budget deficit, as well as millions of lost jobs.Political: a severely net negative perception of Trump's handling of pandemic policy at home and abroad followed by a precipitous decline in his overall job approval and deterioration of his standing in the head-to-head match-up with Biden.Misrepresenting the Research on Good Policy to Defend the U.S. Failure: The single study (the Imperial College epidemiological report to the World Health Organization) on which the Trump administration relies for its claim of 2.2 million lives saved is misread and misrepresented. The analysis focuses how good things could have been under good policy.Under the “best” policy and the spread of the virus that results from it, the study projects the number of U.S. deaths between 6,600 and 24,000 over two years, not the 230,000 that will have perished in the U.S. in less than 10 months before election day.The projected results for good policy are close to the results achieved by other nations.These results are consistent with other epidemiological studies published shortly thereafter, which were dismissed by the Trump administration and its supporters as “political hit jobs.”The Flu: The effort to excuse the poor U.S. outcome by claiming COVID is like the flu fares no better under close scrutiny.In the U.S., COVID has already killed 4 times as many Americans as the most severe flu season in the past decade and 20 times as many as in the least severe flu season in that decade. COVID has killed over twice as many as the worst flu season in the last 50 years.Globally, COVID has killed only one-twentieth as many people who died in the worst flu season ever (1918-1919). In the U.S. it has already killed about one-third as many and that number of deaths continues to rise. The world appears to have learned something the Trump administration has not.The Complete Breakdown of Public Administration - Four dozen academic papers identify the principles for sound public administration during a crisis, demonstrating the cause and effect of the complete breakdown of public administration under Trump.Woodward's book gives the “backstory” on the Trump administration's response, recounting the president's private thoughts and actions (or lack thereof),” Cooper said. “The data and policy analysis in the update give the publicly available “front-story.” They strongly agree.The Bottom Line for PolicyThe data and studies support the conclusions of others.Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, that 'Trump is his own worst enemy.”Bob Woodward, “Trump is the wrong man for the Job.”The New England Journal of Medicine, in a rare election editorial. “When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.'”The tragic irony of the research is that the Trump administration misinterpreted and the advice of its own experts that it disregarded, is that there never was a conflict between good policy (known as non-pharmaceutical interventions) and the development of a vaccine. We could have had both, but we got neither in an avoidable year of suffering.There never was a tradeoff between public health and economic performance. Controlling the virus first was the key to minimizing its economic impact. The only conflict was between the lifecycle of the virus as dramatically altered by good policy, and the political spin cycle of the of Trump administration that undermined an effective U.S. response.Learning the lessons about how not to react to a pandemic in the biosphere is urgent, because we face an ongoing pandemic in the atmosphere, climate change, in which the Trump made exactly the same policy mistakes two years earlier.”
Author : Scott L Greer Publisher : University of Michigan Press Page : 416 pages File Size : 45,40 MB Release : 2021-04-19 Category : Political Science ISBN : 0472902466
COVID-19 is the most significant global crisis of any of our lifetimes. The numbers have been stupefying, whether of infection and mortality, the scale of public health measures, or the economic consequences of shutdown. Coronavirus Politics identifies key threads in the global comparative discussion that continue to shed light on COVID-19 and shape debates about what it means for scholarship in health and comparative politics. Editors Scott L. Greer, Elizabeth J. King, Elize Massard da Fonseca, and André Peralta-Santos bring together over 30 authors versed in politics and the health issues in order to understand the health policy decisions, the public health interventions, the social policy decisions, their interactions, and the reasons. The book’s coverage is global, with a wide range of key and exemplary countries, and contains a mixture of comparative, thematic, and templated country studies. All go beyond reporting and monitoring to develop explanations that draw on the authors' expertise while engaging in structured conversations across the book.
This timely book explores economic, political, social, and cultural impacts of the COVID-19. It aims to reveal a future world shaped by the worldwide pandemic. The main content of this book is divided into 5 parts: the pandemic—a short sketch of the pandemic through 2020, the acceleration of the global power transition: from East to West, comparison between authoritarian and democratic in the pandemic era, global international organizations under the COVID-19 influence, and regional international organizations under the COVID-19 influence. In addition, this book also analyzes the impacts from two aspects: the changes of the world order and the repercussions for international organizations and globalization. Three questions will be focused: How the pandemic has changed the existing world order? What the new post-pandemic world order will be? How international cooperation has been affected and will be affected? This book is a comprehensive study that investigates the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the political implication on international organizations. It would not only inspire readers to think about impacts of the outbreak of COVID-19 from economic and political perspectives, but also encourage readers to have a deeper understanding of the global political pattern and potential changes of world order after the pandemic. Therefore, the intended readership not only includes the academics but also includes pro-academics. The academic audiences include university and college scholars (especially those majoring in history, political sciences, economics, and international relations), teachers, and administrative staff at the undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, and Ph.D. levels, as well as study centers and research institutes and campus and public libraries. The pro-academic groups include civil servants, especially scholarly bureaucrats and technocrats; white collar and middle-class citizens interested in reading, especially those interested in and concerned about current affairs; and international business elites. The most important feature of this book is that it points out the COVID-19 pandemic has been shaping the world order. It also shows in the coming post-pandemic world, the United States would maintain the position of superpower while the still rising China is likely to share some responsibilities in constructing a new multi-polar world with US and other powers. The prevailing of unilateralism will heavily constrain the role of international organizations.
How the politicization of the pandemic endangers our lives—and our democracy COVID-19 has killed more people than any war or public health crisis in American history, but the scale and grim human toll of the pandemic were not inevitable. Pandemic Politics examines how Donald Trump politicized COVID-19, shedding new light on how his administration tied the pandemic to the president’s political fate in an election year and chose partisanship over public health, with disastrous consequences for all of us. Health is not an inherently polarizing issue, but the Trump administration’s partisan response to COVID-19 led ordinary citizens to prioritize what was good for their “team” rather than what was good for their country. Democrats, in turn, viewed the crisis as evidence of Trump’s indifference to public well-being. At a time when solidarity and bipartisan unity were sorely needed, Americans came to see the pandemic in partisan terms, adopting behaviors and attitudes that continue to divide us today. This book draws on a wealth of new data on public opinion to show how pandemic politics has touched all aspects of our lives—from the economy to race and immigration—and puts America’s COVID-19 response in global perspective. An in-depth account of a uniquely American tragedy, Pandemic Politics reveals how the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic has profound and troubling implications for public health and the future of democracy itself.
This book examines how governments around the world responded to the health emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Before vaccines became available, non-medical interventions were the main means to protect the public. Non-medical interventions were put in place by governments as public health policies. In every nation, politicians and governments faced a choice situation, and worldwide, they made different choices. Public health policies came at a price, in economic, social, and ultimately electoral costs to the political incumbents. The book discusses differences in governments’ policy efforts to mitigate the virus spread. The authors conduct in-depth analysis of country-cases from Africa, North and South America, Asia, and Europe. They also offer small-n- comparative analyses as well as report global patterns and trends of governments’ responsiveness to the medical emergency. It will appeal to all those interested in public policy, health policy and governance.
This paper makes a simple point about the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for many spheres of life in the 21st century. • The U.S. had one of the worst policy responses in the world to the pandemic, certainly among the large, high-income democracies, including Asian (e.g. South Korea), European (e.g. Germany), and other nations (e.g. Australia). That response was driven by a view of political economy that rejects the idea that society can impose social responsibility on its members, even under the most dire of circumstances. This political economy rests on a belief that markets perform perfectly when government gets out of the way and the pursuit of individual interests is synonymous with the public good. Currently called market fundamentalism, it was known as laissez faire economics and social Darwinism for well over a century. Examining over 120 recent historical and contemporary case studies, results of epidemiological and econometric models, and investigative analyses, this paper shows that more effective public health policy would also have been good economic policy and had better political results because the public would have been reassured and the economy could have been opened sooner. Ultimately, the costs of this policy failure can only be described as catastrophic, imposing unnecessary harms in three areas. Public Health• 120,000 deaths, • half a million hospitalizations, and • two million infections. Economic:• $7 trillion in lost output.• Trillions of dollars increased debt, and• Hundreds of millions of dollars of lost employmentPolitical:• Continuing resistance by the vast majority of the public to engaging in the activities the administration seems to value most• A preference for local officials to set policy• A collapse of public confidence in the administration to deal with the problem, and• A dramatic reduction in support for and the electability of the administration and its supporters.The policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic highlights and magnifies a much broader weakness. This paper concludes with a brief analysis of a parallel the knee-jerk, market fundamentalist response - to climate change. The 19th century view of political economy cannot cope with the challenges of the contemporary global community of over seven billion individuals in 200 nations interconnected in the biosphere (pandemic,) the atmosphere (climate change) and the economic sphere (financial, trade and recessionary meltdowns, and technology diffusion). The analysis of the climate challenge and the other global spheres where policy must be made in the face of great uncertainty points to an approach that emphasizes precaution, science, information gathering, flexibility, and cooperative governance and that recognizes both the importance and limitations of policy making authorities at the international, national, state and local levels. These are the exact opposite of the approach taken in the U.S.
This book examines and classifies different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic from economists across the world. With the impacts of the pandemic experienced differently in each country, specific case studies are provided to highlight how the economics profession has responded to the challenges that have emerged from COVID-19. Key debates, such as the trade-off between health protective measures and the economic impacts of closing important sectors, are discussed, with a focus on the responses in China, the USA, Italy, France, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, India, and Palestine. This book explores the ability of economists to respond to economic and social crises, and provides insight into the ties between economic theory and economic policy in the modern world. It will be relevant to students and researchers interested in how economists have responded to the COVID-19 and what changes it might trigger.